Stalemate

Edward Winter

(1999, with updates)

‘The stalemate is the penalty for mauling without killing’ was
the prize-winning entry in a New Statesman competition in
the 1950s. The remark came from a Mr Hamburger, according to
Assiac, the Statesman’s columnist (see page 63 of his book
The Pleasures of Chess).

In the present compendium of little-known examples of stalemate,
we begin with what is probably the most common form, arising in a
queen ending:

C.A. Walbrodt – T. von Scheve, Berlin, 1891 (Black
to move)

81…Qd6+ 82 Kxd6 Stalemate.

Source: International Chess Magazine, September 1891,
pages 269-271.

A similar example comes from an offhand game at the Melbourne
Chess Club between unidentified players:

The above position (White to move) occurred in a game at the
Perth Chess Club, White being the 15-year-old Vernon Stannard. He
played 1 Re8 c2 2 Re1 Rd1 3 Re2 c1(Q) 4 Rc2+ Qxc2 Stalemate. With
4…Qxc2 Black contrived to play the only move which did not win.

Instead of moving his attacked knight to b1 or b5, Black played
1…Nc4, setting up the mating threat 2…b5. However, White obtained
an immediate draw with 2 Rxb7+.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 3 September 1911, page
320.

This position, with White to move, arose in a correspondence game
between Kandler and Josef Schwarzbach. Black has just played his
rook from e4 to e3, and White replied 1 Ka4. Now it may seem that
Black can win by 1…Rxc3 2 Qxe7 Ka6, threatening 3…b5 mate, but
White achieves stalemate by means of 2 Qd8+.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 15 January 1911, page 26.

J.H. Blackburne – S. Winawer, Dresden, 26 July
1892 (Black to move)

Black played 49…Rxd3, which Blackburne answered with 50 Rxf8+,
and the game was drawn. If 50…Kxf8 51 Qxh6+, and White will draw
by stalemate.

The finish is ingenious but 1…Bxd4+ was by no means forced, as
1…Qxd4+ or 1…Bb7 should win for Black. Moreover, from the
diagrammed position, White could force the draw with 1 Rxc8+ Kxc8
2 Qg8+ Kb7 3 Qf7+ Ka8 4 Qe8+ Bb8 5 Qc6+.

Finally, a position in which a master misses a simple stalemate
opportunity. It happened in the game between E. Lundin and W.R.
Hasenfuss at the Prague, 1931 Olympiad:

Black played 68…Qb8+ and had to resign ten moves later. Instead
he could have drawn immediately with 68…Qe6+.

As is well known, it was only in the early nineteenth century
that stalemate came to be regarded as a draw. The old rule is
shown in the excerpt below from page 32 of Studies of Chess
(London 1803):

For an historical tailpiece here, it may also be noted that even
in the mid-nineteenth century there was still discussion about
whether an en passant capture, normally optional, was
obligatory in cases where it relieved an otherwise stalemate
position. On page 5 of his 1860 book Chess Praxis Staunton
wrote:

‘A “forced move” is when a player can only make one move, and
the taking a pawn in passing is to be considered a forced move
when the player has no other.’

Charles Tomlinson recalled on pages 501-502 of the November 1891
BCM that the above wording had come about after he had
submitted for discussion the following position:

‘I set up the annexed position, and put the question whether,
in order to escape a stale mate, the second player could be
compelled to take the P en passant. In this position,
White having to play, advances the Knight’s Pawn two squares,
whereupon Black calls out Stale mate! No, retorts White, you can
take the Pawn en passant. But that is at my option,
returns Black, it is a purely voluntary move, and I don’t choose
to make it. In this contention, I held Black to be in the right,
it is a purely voluntary move, and the definition of a stale
mate as generally given, to be faulty:- “A stale mate is when a
player whose King is not in check, and whose turn it is to play,
has no move except such as would put his King in check.” The
committee [on revising the laws of chess, comprising Messrs
Löwenthal, Ingleby, Wayte and Tomlinson] agreed with me that the
law required amendment…’ [This shows that capturing en
passant is not always a ‘privilege’, to quote the term
used twice on page 93 of An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess
by Edward R. Brace.]

Another simple position illustrating the point appeared on page
21 of The Kipping Chess Club Year Book 1943-1944:

Chess Monthlyhad further discussion
of this matter: April 1857, pages 105-107; June 1857, pages
161-162; August 1857, pages 227-230; November 1857, pages
321-323.

BCM, July 1903,
pages 281-289: ‘Stalemate’ by H.J.R. Murray. A detailed
history as far as the beginning of the nineteenth century.

BCM, October
1917, pages 313-316: ‘Stalemate in Master-Play’ by J. Schumer.
A discussion of eight specimens. T.R. Dawson provided
supplementary information in a letter published on page 391 of
the December 1917 issue of the same magazine.

BCM, December
1940, pages 390-391: ‘The Stalemate Fallacy’ by T.H. Tylor.
The British master’s proposal that stalemate should not be a
draw was reproduced on pages 242-244 of F. Reinfeld’s The
Treasury of Chess Lore. It was also debated in the
following issues of the BCM: February 1941, pages
39-40; March 1941, pages 65-66; April 1941, pages 107-108; May
1941, pages 140-141; August 1944, pages 185-186; October 1944,
pages 232-233. Moreover, Tylor’s article was lambasted by B.H. Wood on pages
98-99 of the April 1941 CHESS under the title ‘This Stalemate Fallacy Fallacy’. The
final paragraph was just six words: ‘Mr Tylor is a naughty boy.’

BCM,
January 1948, page 7: an article entitled ‘Stalemate!!’ by
G. Legentil,.It was reproduced on pages 57-59 of Reinfeld’sThe Treasury of Chess
Lore.

Chess Review,
April 1952, pages 104-105: ‘Stalemate’ by I.A. Horowitz. A
general article with examples from play.

An article entitled
‘Chess Evolution, Past and Future (?)’ by C.J.S. Purdy on
pages 277-282 of the December 1955 Chess World (in
which he also referred back to his article ‘Abolish Stalemate’
in the April 1941 Australasian Chess Review).

Chess Review,
January 1963, pages 10-12: ‘Trapped into Stalemate’ by W.
Korn. A number of over-the-board specimens, essentially from
the post-War area.

In a letter on page 7 of the January 1937 Chess Review
Herbert Harvey proposed a rule change whereby a pawn would ‘become
by promotion automatically the piece appropriate to the file on
which it is promoted’. A choice of pieces would exist only in case
of promotion on the king’s file.

Many newspapers, magazines, journals and books have, on various
occasions, alluded to the situation in the Dardanelles and in
France as that of a “stalemate”, painfully illustrating the
truth of the adage how dangerous a thing is a little knowledge.
No-one with any real familiarity with chess would use the
expression stalemate in describing the war in either of its
areas, which would convey the idea that it was all over and a
draw had resulted. A deadlock perhaps at one time would have
been a correct definition, but a stalemate is a climax, a
finality, and is absolutely misleading. The Germans in this
awful contest would jump at a stalemate, but their opponents
have got some good “moves” to spring upon them at the psychical
moment, when the Kaiser will be effectually checkmated – a
totally different matter to being stalemated.’

(7116)

A small feature in the Chess Amateur, September 1928,
page 369:

‘The Inevitable Blunder: – How many authors and journalists go
wrong over the term “stalemate”? Legions of them. Here is the
usual mistake:

“I watched him silently, unable to decide whether to continue
the futile argument or not. There was stalemate between us. He
had as strong a hold on me as I had on him.” (J. Chancellor in
The Mystery of Norman’s Court, Chapter vii).’

The fact is, of course, that in the ordinary language the word
has not really changed its meaning.’

The on-line Oxford English Dictionary cites two
figurative uses of ‘stalemate’:

The Times, 15 December 1885: ‘The Prince ... will not
... consent to the stalemate of mutual evacuation proposed by
Servia.’

Standard, 20 September 1912: ‘So far as the public
can see the match [between the two armies] ended in stalemate.’

Below is the entry on page 1593 of the Collins Dictionary
(Glasgow, 2011):